User talk:NerdyWizard

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, NerdyWizard!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.Nullahnung (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


About this: please use piped links ([[Article name|displayed text]]) only when the link text you want to be displayed is significantly different from the title of the article you are linking to. Underscores in the URL replace spaces in the article title, so you don't need to include them in the link.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to make the capitalization grammatically accurate, but I can just use a straight link if thems the rules. Ah, actually I see what I did there, sorry again.--NerdyWizard (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Who's a sysop?[edit]

You are. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Heads up from a wiki-gnome.[edit]

You list pages you create on your user page. Cool. but that creates links to the pages. Maybe cool? When no other pages link to those articles, they do not show up on the list of unlinked-to pages. Less cool. Two articles that are listed on your user page have no links to them in mainspace -- "Scientists are baffled" and "Precautionary principle". It would be nice to know that something links to them without having to hunt around. Peace and love. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

What be your suggestion then? I like having a list on my user page.--NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 17:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Make sure the page has a link or two going into it before posting the link on your user page? TeenageWasteland (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Word. I will try to link to stuff more before adding it.--NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 18:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you please provide a longer explanation of what's wrong with the water flouridation additions?[edit]

If it's not pertinent to point out how little the practice is carried out in Europe shouldn't you delete my contribution to the vitamin supplement article? I can see the sociology part being less important as that section doesn't exist for other articles, however the opinions of Europes are sort of note worthy for providing more of a a global perspective. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, hold on, you're saying that because I think your additions are not helpful on one article, therefore your additions on another entirely unrelated article should also be deleted? NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 18:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Stop edit-warring, raise your beefs on the talk page. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 18:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Says the person who is edit-warring and not discussing anything on the talk page...NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What the hell is your problem?[edit]

Edit-warring I can understand. But vandal-binning two users because you pulled the idea that they are the same person out of your ass is unacceptable. I have removed your sysop rights because you don't know how to use them. Re-read the sysop guide, stop being a pain in the ass, and then you can have the mop and bucket back. Father Vivian O'Blivion talkModerator 18:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks Amateur Encyclopedist and Father Vivian are the same person has not been watching their activities carefully enough, nor for long enough. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm taking this to the mob. This is tomfoolery.NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 19:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Vandal binning those two users because of that edit war is clearly over the line, and the cited reason revealed some stunning ignorance (see SJC above).
That said, AE is a problematic user who's fond of adding material that is irrelevant, tone-deaf and/or simply poorly written. I suggest reading their userpage and its history.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Welp, guess I'm just an ignorant slut. I honestly don't pay much attention to all the goings on around here, I just have my edits and watchlist and mostly try to keep my head down. NerdyWizardyou believed that why? 20:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
If you do follow ZooGuard's suggestion, beware: following some of the trails from AE's pages will take you into time sinks of near astronomical magnitude. I don't recommend going there unless you feel gluttonous for punishment. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Vivian actually proof reads instead of just hitting spell check. That's why they don't make another edit 2 minutes later after noticing grammar and spelling errors that would have been caught in the proof reading stage. That really should have been the first clue we aren't the same person. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 05:42, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding views.[edit]

Hi NerdyWizard, you might recall me from editing the GMO page.

Please excuse my cold contacting you, but I am curious about your thought process.

According to you, all those who hold views contrary to the US-mandated scientific views have fallen prey to a psychological condition called "woo", isn't this the case? I am wondering:

1) What is your view on foreign policy? Do you believe opposition to NATO for example is all "woo"? Do you believe the US bombing of Iraq has caused a great increase of terminal cancer in children?

2) Off the top of your head, do you believe there is any evidence that eating non-organic fruit and vegetables significantly increases your risk of cancer due to the pesticides on them? Or if you saw such an edit, would you go searching for any studies or authoritative-sounding reports that didn't show a link, then once you found one write down that they do not cause cancer as a fact, and dismiss it all as being "woo"? SuperInfinity (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"According to you, all those who hold views contrary to the US-mandated scientific views have fallen prey to a psychological condition called "woo"" - Nope, straw man. --NerdyWizard (talk) you believed that why? 19:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for/rationally substantiate your opinions, or else remove them[edit]

Looking at the IFL Science page, you seem to be the author of most of it. You accuse IFL Science of all kinds of things, but have not substantiated any of it. I have started a conversation on this matter on the "talk" section of that page. Please come along and join in. If you think what you have written should remain, I suggest you need to provide some evidence to back it up and explain why you think it is accurate. We can take it from there. If you agree with me that it is not accurate, on the other hand, shouldn't it be removed?HalHuxley (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)